Don't Ask, Don't Tell declared unconstittuional
 

Surprised nobody else picked up on this.

(CNN) -- A federal court in Riverside, California, ruled Thursday that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- which bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly -- is unconstitutional.
"Plaintiff has demonstrated it is entitled to the relief sought on behalf of its members, a judicial declaration that the don't ask, don't tell act violates the Fifth and First Amendments, and a permanent injunction barring its enforcement," concluded U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips, a 1999 Clinton appointee.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/don...t.tell/?hpt=T2

Whoop-dee-doo.....J/K.

The President and the DoD have been plotting the death of DADT for some months now; I do believe that it's going to happen soon. This ruling would have packed a hell of a lot more punch had it come 10 years ago, so what I want to know is why now?

Because a group of Log Cabin Republicans sued the US Government over the rule and it finally got this far. That's why now.

This will probably be overturned.

The 1st Amendment and 5th Amendment do not apply to military personnel.

Once you sign on the line which is dotted, for better, for worse, the federal government owns you.

The LCR has been around since the 1970s, DADT was signed into law 17 years ago and this lawsuit was filed just a few months ago. I am just wondering why they waited til after the President and the Pentagon started planning the DADT repeal. I'm thinking maybe they are just sick of waiting and are trying to speed up the process but I still think they should have done this 10 years ago instead of now when DADT is already on it's deathbed.

Regardless of the reason, I hope this is the beginning of the end. It's just embarrassing how much control the wingnuts have over every aspect of American life and culture.

Uhhhhh...Not really. I see you are in Dubai, are you an ex-pat from the U.S.?

Yes, I'm an expat. And I can tell you what the rest of the world thinks of us. We are hyper-violent, uneducated, religious fundamentalists of the most dangerous sort, and we do not care about our fellow citizens. :(

Is that really what "the world" thinks or is that what you think?

And I can say pretty much say the same about any country in the middle east ;)

"The rest of the world" is a pretty big generalization, don't you think?

I have to say.. though I don't share that opinion , a lot of people (not all but a lot) in europe do feel that way as well...

Not the religious fundamentalist part but the rest of it... pretty much yes...

The Amendments apply to the government though. This judge is saying that they apply to the military. You can regulate an individual soldiers actions - no sex on the battlefield, no disrespecting a superior officer, whatever - because of the need to maintain discipline, but you can't argue that mentioning your girlfriend/boyfriend back home is harmful to discipline just because that person is of the same sex. And the judge in fact found it was harmful to discipline.

And, you don't lose all of your first or any amendment rights as a soldier. The military cannot prohibit you from practicing your religion for example. Military personnel also have a right to due process even if that comes in a different form than civilian court procedures.

It might have something to do with the fact that we had two ongoing wars at the time with low recruitment numbers and forced prolonged commitments by current military personnel all the while the military is systematically kicking out trained soldiers with valuable skills just because they happen to be gay. Yeah, that might be a good reason.

LOL.

With all the rush stories floating around, I keep reading this thread title as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Recruitment."

The judge said that the precedent set by Lawrence v. Texas was key. Also this article says it was the first time the law was challenged on its face.
Article focused on the Judge

While that's a good argument for military leaders and politicians to make against DADT this is IMO a civil rights issue and that's what the LCR make it as well. Even in peacetime they were against DADT. I'm just saying I would have liked to see this go down 15 years ago BEFORE all of the discharges happened.

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I agree with DADT... at least when it comes to the Infantry MOS.

I have two cousins and a few friends who have served in the infantry, and have been on the front lines, and although they have no negative feelings toward homosexuals, they all say the same thing (which I happen to agree with) - sex, or even sexual feelings or distractions, have no place in war.

How would having an openly gay homosexual versus a closeted homosexual keep sex or sexual feelings of distractions from occurring?

You shouldn't because you share the popular opinion. The most recent polls show that the majority of servicemembers and civilians are against the repeal of DADT. I hate to burst your bubble but there are gay people already on the front lines and they have yet to rape anyone in a foxhole. If you're getting shot at sex is one of the last things on your mind ;)

But it's more likely to help them make their argument. Expediency generally overrides irrelevant or irrational arguments.

But that doesn't make sense since there are gay people serving right now (oh and straight men and women serving together) they're just forced to LIE. A lot. All DADT does is make gay men and women break the honor codes they swear to uphold.

Women have served in combat, even though they're technically not supposed to, and have fought, saved lives and died with honor all without being a "distraction" to the men.

And you'll never stop humans from having any sexual feelings (fraternization happens all the time) but if all someone can think about while being shot at is that the guy behind him/her might be gay, then s/he's the one with the serious problem.

From what I read somewhere, the President and the Justice Department have 60 days to appeal the Judge Phillips' ruling. The mid-term election is 50-odd days away. It will be interesting to see what path the Obama administration takes.

Odds are they will request a temporary injunction, appeal, and then continue down their slower path of repealing it after the "report" in December. Yes, I'm so excited they're doing it this way /sarcasm , but it does require Congress to repeal unfortunately.

And then a change in the UCMJ, anyone know how that gets amended?

UCMJ is amended by Congress. Though IIRC, DADT isn't a separate article. Those are processed as general article cases. I could be wrong though.

DADT is a law but didn't amend the UCMJ. It just said that you couldn't seek out whether or not someone was gay and that as long as the person didn't "admit" to it they could be gay in the military.

The UCMJ currently states that homosexual conduct (not like on the front lines but AT ALL) is grounds for separation. (The policy is in pdf form here) And it puts into practice this US Code:
10 USC 654
So, currently, revoking DADT doesn't solve the problem that being gay in the military will get you discharged.

ASTalumna06: You certainly have the right to express your opinion, however, almost the same argument was used to keep women (like myself) out of most military occupations (other than nursing) until the 1970's when a woman named Frontiero sued the U.S. Air Force. To a certain degree, the same type of argument was also used to support segregation by race when the armed forces were initially desegreated (the racial tensions would cause too many distractions).

As a reserve officer (full disclosure: not in a combat arms position), I can tell you that DADT is already basically dead. Most younger enlisted really don't care (which I think is a generational thing). Most senior officers see pursuing any sort of investigation (which now has to be started at the general officer level) to be a complete waste of time and effort, and a major distractor from operations.

The only folks who DO seem to care, from my observations are mostly male senior enlisted personnel and members of the chaplain corps. Many of these senior enlisted are also still not comfortable with female officers (...I could share some stories).

Again, full disclosure: I am not a lesbian. I can say I have worked in the military with a number of very good folks who I knew or strongly suspected were gay or lesbian, and many are outstanding sailors and marines. Have I seen some gay/lesbians get into trouble because of personal misconduct? Yes, but not nearly to the extent I have seen it with straight sailors/marines (particularly the scenario of young male officers with female enlisted).

Anyway, I will personally be glad to see DADT gone. I think it is discriminatory and I think our society has moved beyond the thinking that brought it (and the previous, more draconian, policy) into existance.

Drolefille: Just to clarify...DADT is not part of the "punative articles" of the UCMJ (i.e., the specific criminal laws that a service member can face a courts martial for violating, for instance Article 92 - disobeying a lawful order, Article 120 - Rape, etc.). A soldier can't be criminally charged for "being gay," but they can be ADMINISTRATIVELY separated under the provisions you quoted, which is like being "fired for cause." Most administrative separations in the military are for things like poor performance, losing a security clearance, drug and alcohol rehab failure, failure to pass physical fitness tests, etc.

It should be pointed out that a service member can face charges under the UCMJ for homosexual conduct, such as rape, carnal knowledge, indecent exposure, prostitution, etc. In my opinon, this is even MORE of a reason to repeal DADT, since there are mechanisms in place to prosecute service members of any sexual persuasion for inappropriate conduct.

One last thing: There was a recent change (largely unnoticed by the media) concerning what can be used to trigger an investigation into sexual orientation status. It was mainly a list of what CAN'T be used: Information that comes up in a security clearance investigation and anonymous "informants" chief among them, as these were two of the main reasons these investigations would be started in the past.

However until the homosexual conduct = separation policy is changed, repealing DADT only makes it easier to discharge gay people from the military.

That doesn't mean that Congress wouldn't do both at the same time, I think it's very possible that whatever is passed will revoke DADT and amend the USC. The UCMJ will then be amended by whoever actually does that part to put the new USC into effect.

I worked in government bureaucracy long enough to figure out the hurdles ;)

I just think it's important to point out that while DADT was not a good thing, it was put into place as kind of a half-ass way to let gays serve without making it "OK" and condoning the icky gay people.

ETA: And I am actually familiar with the newer restrictions on investigation, however it's still asking gay servicemen and women to live a lie. You can't have a picture of a partner hanging around and you can't talk about what you're going to do on leave, or why you don't have a boyfriend/girlfriend.

Well the policy is not really a big deal. Once it is no longer statue law, the policy can be done away with via executive order.

From another perspective, once it is gone, unless it is replaced with the caveat that it is not cause for separation, then they can all be asked and fired with cause.

DADT was started, in my recollection, because they were asked and then, when answering honestly, were fired. It was created to protect the homosexuals in the military... like a stop gap measure. Unless I've missed something (which is entirely possible because I am, by no means, an expert on this topic), if it is taken away without a new policy being implemented, it is not really a good thing.

You're right @ bolded but the issue is about letting gays serve openly in the military so I'm sure that issue will be handled accordingly.

The steps are: Repeal DADT, Repeal/Amend the relevant USC, then the policy gets amended.

That's the point I was trying to make, revoking DADT is only half of it. Odds are they will revoke DADT and change the standing USC at the same time, the UCMJ will then need amending based on the the new USC but it's probably likely that even before the UCMJ would be amended that it would basically make those policies unenforceable.